U.S. v. Baldridge

Decision Date18 March 2009
Docket NumberNo. 07-5121.,07-5121.
Citation559 F.3d 1126
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Lee BALDRIDGE, a/k/a Randy Baldridge, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Jeffrey A. Gallant, Assistant United States Attorney (T. Scott Woodward, Acting United States Attorney and Joseph F. Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney with him on the brief) Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William D. Lunn, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, HOLLOWAY, Senior Judge, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

O'BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

Randy Lee Baldridge appeals from his conviction on eight counts of conspiracy, fraud and misapplication of funds by a local government official, mail fraud, money laundering, and corrupt persuasion of a person to obstruct a federal investigation. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

From 2003 through 2006, Baldridge served as an elected county commissioner of Rogers County, Oklahoma (the County). As alleged by the government and found by the jury, Baldridge abused his position as commissioner by engaging in a scheme to file false claims with the County for payment.

A. County Expenditures

The County generally made expenditures through a consistent multistep process. An elected official or department head would generate a purchase order (PO), which contained basic information including the vendor, a description of the work to be performed, and the estimated cost. After the work was performed, the vendor would prepare an invoice and a county employee—the receiving agent— would prepare a receiving report. Both the receiving agent and the individual who prepared the PO were responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the invoices and receiving reports.

The PO, invoice and receiving report were then presented to the Board of County Commissions (the Board) for payment. The Board approved payment of POs at its weekly meeting. Approximately 150 to 200 POs were approved in bulk every week. During the period at issue here, all POs were approved unanimously. Once payment was approved, a warrant—essentially the equivalent of a check—was issued for payment. It was the County's policy to mail the warrants to the vendors, but vendors could also pick up their warrants in person. When vendors picked up their warrants in person, they were required to sign a register.

B. Bruce Long—the Dog Creek Project

In 2003, Baldridge hired Bruce Long to work as an equipment operator. His duties included cleaning rights-of-way, cutting brush and operating machinery. After approximately six months, Baldridge promoted Long to a first deputy or road foreman. In that role, Long was responsible for overseeing the work of other operators and maintaining the County roads in the district.

In July 2004, work needed to be performed on a section of highway near Dog Creek. Baldridge called two independent contractors to perform the work but one was unavailable and the other gave a quote Baldridge believed was too high. Baldridge asked Long to perform the work. Long expected to be paid approximately $2,090 for the work in addition to his usual salary. Long performed the work using a track hoe rented by the County. After the work was completed, Baldridge instructed Long to find a friend to whom payment could be made to avoid questions regarding favoritism and paying a salaried employee for contract work. Barney Howard, the receiving agent at the time, prepared a PO designating Long's friend, Brad Jones, as the vendor. Baldridge signed the PO on July 26, 2004, though he understood Long, not Jones, performed the work. Relying on information from Baldridge, Cindy Rash1 prepared a false invoice reflecting Jones as the vendor. Howard prepared a receiving report stating Jones had completed 38 hours of work on the Dog Creek project. Long told Baldridge it took him only 24 hours to perform the job but Baldridge insisted it would not look right if he were paid the amount promised for only 24 hours of work.

A warrant in the amount of $2,090.00 was approved by the Board. Baldridge voted to approve the payment without disclosing the hours billed to the County were inflated and it was Long, not Jones, who did the work. The warrant was prepared on August 10, 2004, and mailed to Jones. Jones cashed the warrant and gave the money to Long. Long gave Jones a couple hundred dollars.

C. Brian Rash

In the fall of 2004, Baldridge hired Brian Rash, Cindy Rash's husband, to do some contract labor at the residence of his sister, Sue Baldridge. Randy Baldridge was a part owner of this property. Rash agreed to work for Baldridge for $20 per hour, understanding he would be paid with County funds. Baldridge asked Rash to do this work with his personal tractor because it would not look good for county equipment to be on the property.

On November 30, 2004, Baldridge signed a PO for Rash to perform 80 hours of contract labor. Cindy Rash prepared the invoice and signed her husband's name to it. She also prepared a receiving report indicating her husband performed 80 hours of labor between November 30 and December 14. A warrant was issued to Brian Rash on December 20, 2004 in the amount of $1,600. Brian Rash picked the warrant up in person. He testified the only work he did for this money was at Sue Baldridge's residence, though part of the work was on a county easement.

Over the course of the next six months, Cindy Rash prepared three more POs relating to her husband's work. On January 11, 2005, Rash was authorized to perform another 80 hours of contract labor. Cindy Rash again filled out an invoice which she signed on behalf of her husband. The receiving report, which was in Cindy Rash's handwriting, stated Brian Rash performed contract labor on seventeen days between January 11 and January 30, 2005. On February 7, 2005 the County issued a warrant in the amount of $1,600 to Rash. This warrant was picked up by one of Brian Rash's employees and endorsed by both Cindy and Brian Rash. Brian Rash admitted the only work he did for this money was at Sue Baldridge's residence. Cindy Rash testified that after one of these warrants was cashed, she gave Baldridge all the money because he told her he needed to "borrow" the money "to pay a bill off." (R. Vol. III at 85). There was no documentation for the loan and Baldridge never paid the money back. A bank employee testified Baldridge deposited $1300 cash into his bank account around this same period of time.2

On April 1, 2005, Baldridge signed another PO for Brian Rash to perform 80 hours of contract labor. Again, Cindy Rash prepared both the invoice and the receiving report showing fifteen days of work from April 2 to April 20, 2005. Baldridge testified he believed Rash was "filling in for one of our contract mowers." (R. Vol. VI at 712.) A warrant was issued for $1,600 on May 2, 2005. The warrant was picked up and endorsed by Cindy Rash. Brian testified the only work he did for this warrant was at Sue Baldridge's residence.

On July 19, 2005, Baldridge signed another PO authorizing Brian Rash to perform 80 hours of contract labor for $1,600. Again, Cindy Rash signed an invoice for her husband and filled out a receiving report indicating he had worked every day from July 19 through August 3, 2005, with the exception of July 31. Baldridge testified he thought Brian was "mowing down in the Inola area." (R. Vol. VI at 713.) The warrant for this work was issued to Brian Rash on August 16, 2005, and was picked up by Cindy Rash and endorsed by her. Again, Brian Rash testified the only work he did for this warrant was at Sue Baldridge's residence.

Baldridge voted to approve payment of the Brian Rash POs without disclosing to the Board that Rash performed all the work at Sue Baldridge's residence.

D. Joseph Bentz

Baldridge was friends with Joseph Bentz and rented a unit in a triplex owned by Bentz. In the summer of 2005, Baldridge looked after the triplex for Bentz. During this period of time, Bentz experienced financial difficulty. Baldridge was aware of Bentz's financial problems and loaned Bentz money periodically.

At issue here, Baldridge offered to help Bentz financially by having him do concrete work on a bridge near where he was living. On July 22, 2005, Baldridge signed a PO prepared by Cindy Rash authorizing concrete work on the bridge in the amount of $1,700. Cindy Rash prepared an invoice purporting to be from Bentz, which Bentz signed. Rash also prepared a receiving report, dated August 1, 2005, indicating the work had been completed, though she never verified the work was done. Baldridge voted to approve the payment to Bentz without disclosing to the Board that no work was ever performed.

On August 9, 2005, a warrant was issued to Bentz in the amount of $1,700. Because Bentz was in Texas, Baldridge picked up the warrant and deposited it into Bentz's checking account. Several days later, Bentz paid his property taxes to Rogers County in the amount of $649.72 and paid Baldridge $700 for looking after for the triplex. The payment to Baldridge was made by cashier's check with Bentz listed as the remitter. Baldridge picked up the cashier's check in his name and deposited $600 of it into his bank account approximately twelve minutes after the cashier's check was created.

E. Bruce Long—the Robert Portiss Driveway

In August 2005, the County made plans to pave Ray Davis Road. The work was to be performed by Bellco Materials. Shortly after a PO was approved, Robert Portiss, who lived on Ray Davis Road, contacted Baldridge about having his driveway paved at the same time the road was paved. Baldridge agreed and the price was set at $3,000.

Baldridge instructed Long, who was involved in the project, to have Bellco pave Portiss' driveway with asphalt purchased by the County for Ray Davis Road. Long directed a Bellco employee, Carey Bunker, to pave the driveway. Although it was contrary to Bellco's policy, it paved both the road and the driveway using the asphalt paid...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • United States v. López-Martínez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • September 21, 2020
    ...on her husband's car note, rent payments on her husband's night club, and expenses related to their new home); United States v Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1139 (10th Cir. 2009)(upholding a Section 666 intentional misapplication conviction where a county commissioner filed false payment claims......
  • New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Ctr., P.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • July 11, 2019
    ...v. United States, 347 U.S. at 65, 74 S.Ct. 354 )). It is "permissible impeachment to expose a witness's bias." United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1135 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 51, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984) ; United States v. DeSoto, 950......
  • United States v. McCluskey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 20, 2013
    ...for exclusion of expert testimony. Cruz–Vazquez v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., 613 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir.2010); see United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1135 (10th Cir.2009) (proper subject for cross-examination of any witness is question of bias). The issues to which the Court must apply it......
  • Bogard v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 12, 2019
    ...404(a) ; although the defendant objected to the testimony below he did not do so on Rule 404(a) grounds); United States v. Baldridge , 559 F.3d 1126, 1134-35 (10th Cir. 2009) (applying plain error review to prosecutorial misconduct claim based on prosecutor’s improper question to witness; w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • MONEY LAUNDERING
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...transaction or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement). 124. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B); see United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1140–41 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Shepard, 396 F.3d 1116, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005)) (f‌inding that structuring payments to go ......
  • Money Laundering
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...a transaction reporting requirement). 107. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B); see also, e.g. , United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1140–41 (10th Cir. 2009) (f‌inding structuring payments to go through third parties shows intent to conceal or disguise the owner of the pr......
  • Money Laundering
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement). 122. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B); see United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1140–41 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Shepard, 396 F.3d 1116, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005)) (f‌inding that structuring payments to go t......
  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...Absent dishonesty, merely impeding an investigation does not con-stitute corrupt persuasion.175 170. See United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1142 (10th Cir. 2009) (f‌inding that the defendant’s statements to witnesses met the “corruptly persuade” standard despite lack of coercion bec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT